Men having sex with men has remained the disease's leading mode of transmission.

Heterosexual sex was the principal mode of transmission for blacks with the disease, 33 percent. Men having sex with men was the chief mode of transmission for white residents, 78 percent; and Latinos, 49 percent. Black women represent more than a quarter of HIV cases in the District, and most, about 58 percent, were infected through heterosexual sex. About a quarter of black women were infected through drug use.

If black homosexuality accounts for only 33 percent of HIV infections, how can that be the principle transmission mechanism? Doesn't make sense.

Imagine so much concern about for a fatal disease transmitted primarily by homosexual sex and dirty needle sharing by adicts, and so much compassion for the afflicted, and contrast that with the virulent hatred and bile expressed for those who smoke cigarettes, or eat fast food.

I heard years ago that the AIDs virus in Africa spread through heterosexuals who practice anal “sex”. Might that explain it? There should not be a difference between black and white infections unless there is a difference in behavior, maybe drugs, maybe something to do with “sexual” aberrations.

Of course we know it is the fault of Bush and the vast white right wing conspiracy. (sarcasm)

Rom 1:27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Rom 6:23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

""In order to solve an issue as complex as HIV and AIDS, you have to step up," he said"

There is nothing the government or anyone can do to stop the spread of HIV. The only ones in control of it are those who have gay sex. HIV has been around for a long time now, WE ALL know the dangers of gay sex, but yet, they're out there, still having it, unprotected.

13
posted on 03/15/2009 8:27:09 AM PDT
by NoGrayZone
(Who Is John Galt?)

It is incredible how easy it would be for this disease to become extinct. Yet those who transmit it among one another, gleefully, want political measures in place to guarantee it’s unfettered proliferation. Can the left be more stupid?

20
posted on 03/15/2009 8:38:27 AM PDT
by wgflyer
(Liberalism is to society what HIV is to the immune system.)

If black homosexuality accounts for only 33 percent of HIV infections, how can that be the principle transmission mechanism? Doesn't make sense.

Rule number one. The Aids rate is directly proportional to promiscuity.

Two homos cannot infect one another unless they have multiple partners of which at least one of them is infected. In the case of your assertion, I would suspect bisexuals, who are extremely promiscuous, carry the virus back and forth among the usual identified groups. Note, we never seem to get statistics on bisexuals. The heterosexual statistics are thrown in there to drag the ordinary dolt into feeling obliged to fund a cure. This will never be offered as useful information in primary school sex education.

Male homosexuals are the #1 vector for the spread of infectious diseases in the country. HIV is one of more than a dozen diseases transmitted by these deviants, and those homosexuals with AIDS, are also the breeding ground for antibiotic resistant organisms. The public health threat of this behavior is a monstrous economic burden to health care in general and all because of a mental derangement now promoted as acceptable.

It is more politically palatable for the liberals to maintain the primary cause is homosexuality because it is an ‘alternative lifestyle’ which allows them to blame government for not taking enough money from hard working Americans to fund ‘aids research’. Blaming the primary mode of transmission on needles isn’t politically defensible - yet. Just give Obama enough time. He’ll find a way to blame you and me for some poor black person sticking a dirty needle in their arm and getting aids...It WILL happen.

HIV/AIDS is given the same excuse and mantra for “the problem” as public education - taxpayers not spending enough money to “solve the problem”.

We know that excuse is a lie in both cases.

In one case we have sex addicts and in the other we have an industry - “public education” - addicted to YOUR money - they can never get enough of it, and the more they are given the worse the addiction becomes.

“The public health threat of this behavior is a monstrous economic burden to health care in general..”

Yes. The left has two diametrically opposing philosophies depending upon the issue. 1. AIDS is a huge public health care crisis...we like people who contract and spread AIDS. We need more money to promote its transmission and provide care for those who get it. 2. Smoking is a huge health care crisis. We hate people who smoke, or who breathe smoke. We must punish them and exclude them from health care. We need more money to combat it.

But they are consistent, because the common thread is “we need more money”.

36
posted on 03/15/2009 9:19:06 AM PDT
by wgflyer
(Liberalism is to society what HIV is to the immune system.)

You know, God clearly told people how to avoid being stupid. And if people decide to be stupid, they make the decision to be stupid and they should be on their own.

Uh, that kind of thinking is now outlawed in Obama Nation. If you are stupid and buy more house than you can ever afford, responsible people will bail you out. If you are stupid and have high-risk sex, responsible people are at fault...well, just because. Making people suffer the consequences of their actions is just so...mean and right-wing, dude.

Do I really need a sarcasm tag?

42
posted on 03/15/2009 9:30:51 AM PDT
by LostInBayport
(When more than 98% of the Republicans on Capitol Hill vote against a bill, it is not bipartisan.)

You may be right, but do we really know, are we being told the truth, (I know, i know truth HA) about what causes AIDS? It is an auto immune disease, so what if it can be caused by the repetitive infections that homosexuals cause themselves, wearing down the immune system, until it cannot repair itself? Just asking, as it would seem to make sense to me.

Exactly. Of course, then there would be no need for abortion either, as those who support it strongly, promote the notion one cannot keep their legs closed. People, they apparently think, are controlled by their urges, not the other way around!

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.